Texas woman sentenced to 5 years in prison for voting while on probation - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/30/texas-woman-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison-for-voting-while-on-probation/ <comment><USER2> How does such an attorney and judge feel after such a trial? Do they feel satisfied, fulfilled? Taking away 5 years of someone's life over a little mistake that didn't hurt anyone? I don't get it: why does a free people like the Americans allow for that kind of sinister figures to be their prosecutors and judges?

<comment><USER3> >How does such an attorney and judge feel after such a trial?

They feel ecstatic. They won. The good guys won again, yay! You have a 10oz pot brownie (with a very small amount of mj in it), that's distribution amounts, 30 years in jail for you. Yay! The good guys won again.

* I see I have downvoters... Maybe you don't believe me? I've been working around both the prosecution and defense for around 20 years now, have many family members that work for law enforcement and judges. This is exactly how many of them think.

<comment><USER4> Even from the outside this is obviously true. They consider themselves the good guys by definition, because they see themselves as representing justice, as defined by the criminal code. A noble calling. Once you accept that, pure job performance (convictions) becomes an easy metric. The thought of ruining some individual's (or family's) life over recreational amounts of pot is either justified or compartmented away. Or like aaronsw...once the prosecutors are on it, there's no more question of proportion or actual justice, it's a matter of looking for the conviction.

Edit: I want to amend this a bit. It _is_ something of a noble calling. In a better world, the executive legal function could depend a lot more on legislative and judicial functions to produce a criminal code that served justice better, and just worry about prosecuting what they can according to the law. But in so many cases now, the law is an ass.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a feature, not a bug. The prison system is designed to drag you in and keep you in.

Just disgusting.

<comment><USER6> I think Americans by and large see prison as this dungeon where we store people we don't like for as long as possible rather than as a place where people who have made mistakes go to get the training and help they need in order to get back on track. That's the simplest way to explain things like ultra long sentences compared to the rest of the civilized world, mistreating people after they've done their time (felon status for life and offender lists), and the extreme racial disparity among the prison population. It's a system designed to permanently bifurcate the population into "normals" and "criminals", often along racial lines, and to by any means keep the second group segregated for as long as possible, as often as possible.

<comment><USER7> Calling crimes "mistakes" is a terrible euphemism.

It may be accurate in some cases. But many criminals commit their crimes knowing full well what they are doing, and with no regard for those who are hurt by their actions, and show little or no remorse (unless they think pretending can reduce their sentence).

Now, many are in prison due to unjust laws, selective enforcement, or a flawed prosecution incarcerating the wrong person. But let's not lump those problems together with those who intentionally harm others without remorse.

<comment><USER8> OK, while I get the sentiment, this story is about a crime that was a mistake.

I think many of us are aware that felons loose their right to vote. I guess I assumed you would be blocked from voting. So I never thought about what the penalty should be. Now that I've seen the penalty, I'm appalled.

Frankly, I think we should quit criminalizing everything. The governments responsible for jailing criminals, no-fly lists and a lot of other things. Why not take responsibility for blocking felons from voting?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I never quite understood voter disenfranchisement. Some quick googling tells me that 6 million people are disenfranchised in the US, which out of 235 million voting-aged population means 2.5% of the US voting-aged population is disenfranchised.

It is also majority targeted towards black voters (despite 18% of voting population, 34% of disenfranchised are black)

Putting it together for me it's clear that police brutality, redistricting and rigid voter disenfranchisement all serve the same purpose. To disenfranchise black voters to the maximum extent possible while remaining constitutional.

This should become a supreme court matter someday.

<comment><USER10> Sounds like it should be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment, even if it's currently the status quo and therefore very usual.

<comment><USER9> Well, the only reason I can think of that voting while disenfranchised would be a felony would be to extend the total period of disenfranchisement.

Surely voting by itself doesn't warrant a 5 year jail sentence

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some options:

Hey, you're not on the list, you can't vote.

Hey, you're not on the list, use the computer in the corner to enter your details and see if you're eligible.

Hey, you're not on the list, here is a provisional ballot, we will verify your info and if it clears, your vote will be counted.

You should not get 5 years in prison because the election board is incapable of securing their processes.

<comment><USER12> The final option (provisional ballot) is what happened. The problem is she also signed an affidavit stating that she was eligible. It is a completely victimless crime and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

<comment><USER13> _Not_ victimless. That fraudulent vote cancelled a legitimate one.

The punishment is excessive, but there is a real crime here.

<comment><USER14> Yes victimless: the vote was removed on review.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Felon disenfranchisement by state: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#In_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#In_the_United_States)

</comment><comment><USER16> As soon as I saw the headline I thought "I bet she's black". And it turns out she is.

</comment><comment><USER17> What a disgusting story. How come the State is so vindictive towards the weak and so powerless against people who starts unjustified wars or brings down the financial system ?

<comment><USER18> Their hope is that maybe they'll be able to change the future for the better by making an example of someone, even if they have to be excessive, cruel, or unjust toward that person. They're justifying the means by the hoped end.

<comment><USER19> A more prosaic and more likely explanation is that states controlled by the Republican party seek to suppress black voting by any means possible because it's a threat to their hold on power.

<comment><USER20> I find that explanation unlikely.

First, the vast majority of states have some type of voting restrictions on felons, with Maine and Vermont being the only exceptions.

Second, some states historically and modernly controlled by the Republican party ( _e.g._ Montana) return the right to vote after release.

Third, among states with harsher restrictions (ending after parole or probation) that are historically OR modernly Republican controlled (ignoring the first point-that many such states are Democrat controlled), the demographics are, in many cases, such that _all other races combined_ could not muster even the perception of a threat to the white, Republican voting bloc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why in the world is this a _felony_? If it's "mere" disenfranchisement you're going for, why not simply… _don 't count the vote_?

<comment><USER22> Disenfranchisement can be achieved on a greater scale if you make an example of people. If you take one person and throw them in jail for voting, you get a classic chilling effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I can't quite figure out what the major differentiating factor is between that case and this one where someone intentionally tried to vote twice and just got 2 years of probation: [https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/979519186820128768](https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/979519186820128768)

I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually.

<comment><USER24> Isn't the whole point of probation that you're under a microscope and face greater penalties for wrongdoing, in exchange for an early release or bypassing jail for an earlier offense?

<comment><USER23> The whole point of probation is that you are trusted enough to not be put in prison.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Putting aside the whole "why voting disenfranchisement is even a thing in the first place" argument, this situation should have been just

— Sorry maam, it seems like you can't cast a ballot this time due to being on probation. Have a nice day.

</comment><comment><USER26> > "I don't think I'll ever vote again," she told the news outlet after her > indictment. "That's being honest. I'll never vote again."

This reminds of an article I read about a city government considering fining people for putting non-recyclables in their recycling containers. If there is a risk of getting punished for doing the right thing and no risk if you don't try to do the right thing, then guess which one I'm choosing.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is likely a very old law, or old sentence. I wonder if more of our school system could be focused on teaching people every single law that could screw them over.

We learn the rules of math, science, etc, but not our own system?

</comment><comment><USER28> Ideally, you would not allow people who don't have (additionally) Ph.D.'s in either Math or Physics make laws, but that's not how the world currently works.

<comment><USER29> Why Math or Physics?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Reminds me of the monetary damages levied against people who shared music files.

There was a wrong-doing, but the punishment is excessive.

</comment><comment><USER30> Man the US just disgust me. Land of the free my ass. The amount of inhumane policies is just staggering. The most brutal and unjust "justice" system in the free world.

That American put up with this system is the biggest puzzle. It seems like the only freedom Americans care about is to carry a gun. Any other freedom they are cool with flushing down the toilet.

Sorry for the angry rant, I know there are lots of good and decent people in the US, but how on earth can you stand by year after year and be so chill about the inhumanity of the system?

<comment><USER31> >The most brutal and unjust "justice" system in the free world.

I generally agree with you about the state of our criminal justice system, but I think you'll find US freedoms are a mixed bag when compared to the rest of the "free world." If you take a step back from just our criminal justice system, let's compare us to the UK. If you want to be more like them you'll need to restrict abortions to the first trimester, lose your gun rights, lose your free speech rights, lose separation of church and state, still can't vote while in prison, gay marriage is a states rights issue (not available in Northern Ireland), gain some consumer protections around privacy and returns, censor the internet, and heavily weigh immigration towards "ability" based candidates rather than "diversity."

>It seems like the only freedom Americans care about is to carry a gun.

The two rights I hear most about in the US are guns and abortion, but that's because those two are the most consistently under attack. I think free speech and privacy is going to be getting more mainstream attention soon because of what's going on in the tech industry.</comment></comment>


Do More and `make` Less with GNU Make and Less.js - <AUTHOR> http://www.thumbtack.com/engineering/makefiles-for-less-and-css/

<comment><USER2> This example seems to have a few issues with ordering and what should/shouldn't have their own rules. In general, a good rule of thumb is that _any_ file which is generated should have a coresponding rule to generate it, whether or not that's a generic rule or a specefic rule. Also important, rules should only generate the file they claim to generate (IE. If a rule generates '%.c' and also happens to generate '%.d', it definitely shouldn't act like it only generates '%.c' \- An exception can be made for temporary files, but in general if they're not going to stick around you should remove them when the rule is run anyway, or give them a proper rule if they're sticking around). The biggest reasons for these rules is so that your rules are honest about what they create (And this makes 'make clean' much easier to implement), and the second is that at some point you'll need that generated file somewhere else and won't have a rule to generate it on it's own.

The examples break these rules more then a couple of times. Their very last examples won't work, because they generate the %.d file in the same rule that is only supposed to generate the %.css file. Because of this, 'make' has no way of figuring out what rule to run to create the %.d file, so the -include will fail from the .d files not existing in the first run (-include and include-file generation happen before the default rule is started, because it happens at parsing time). Providing a separate %.d rule would fix this issue (And also fix the issue that every time you compile your dependency info will be generated again, even if it hasn't changed.). For example, if you wrote a 'make clean' which only cleaned the %.css files, all of the %.d files would be generated again when you generate the %.css files, even though it's not nessisary. There's also a small error that 'all' isn't the default rule to run, the default is simply the first rule in the file. It's common to see 'all' defined high-up in a Makefile as something like 'all: real-all', where 'real-all' is defined below after other various things take place, and it does the actual heavy lifting of kicking off the compilation.

<comment><USER3> > Providing a separate %.d rule would fix this issue

Yes. The following is an example of how to handle C header dependencies. It could be adapted to build css from less and would be an improvement on the blog post technique.

        sources := $(wildcard *.c)

        -include $(subst .c,.d,$(sources))

        %.d: %.c
            $(CC) -M $(CPPFLAGS) $< > $@.$$$$; \
            sed 's,\($*\)\.o[ :]*,\ 1.o $@ : ,g' < $@.$$$$ > $@; \
            rm -f $@.$$$$

It uses the fact that if you include a file which doesn't exist but for which there is a rule to build it, GNU make will build it for you.

<comment><USER2> Yep. Though with newer versions of gcc (I don't know how new though) you can avoid the nasty sed stuff. I'm currently using this to generate my .d files for C files:

        $(objtree)/%.d: $(srctree)/%.c
            @$(CC) -MM -MP -MF $@ $(CPPFLAGS) $< -MT $(objtree)/$*.o -MT $@

That generates a dependency file in the form:

        $(objtree)/%.o $(objtree)/%.d: (dependency list)
        (dependency-list-entry-1):
        (dependency-list-entry-2):
        etc...

It's pretty handy. Avoiding all the sed stuff is nice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I threw out all gulp/grunt fluff from my shelve after learning make and never looked back. Makefiles are way smaller (40 vs 300 lines) and straight forward. It reduced my npm install time from 40s to 10s. Builds may take 2 seconds longer than gulp though.

</comment><comment><USER5> > So, when there are so many build systems out there, why make? > * it is > supported on almost all systems

Except the elephant in the room, Windows.

<comment><USER6> GNU Make can be used on Windows. Of course, it's easiest to use it on GNU/Linux or one of the other UNIX-like operating systems.

<comment><USER5> Yes but most Makefiles, including the one in this article, use commands that do not work on Windows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really like make and use it when it makes sense but I'm failing to see the advantages to doing something like this (other than support for make being fairly ubiquitous).

To accomplish the same/similar thing with gulp in one of my projects:

        var gulp = require('gulp');
        var less = require('gulp-less');
        var concat = require('gulp-concat');
        var minifyCSS = require('gulp-minify-css');
        var rename = require('gulp-rename');

        gulp.task('styles', function() {
        	return gulp.src(['assets/styles/**/*.less'])
        		.pipe(less())
        		.pipe(concat('app.css'))
        		.pipe(rename({suffix: '.min'}))
        		.pipe(minifyCSS())
        		.pipe(gulp.dest('www/css/'))
        });

The make example is really cool but I'd be lost if I needed to modify it even ever so slightly. Maybe this speaks more to my lack of experience using the sed/tr/etc but make just seems more complicated to manage. That's just my two cents.

</comment><comment><USER8> I generally like make and I got some nice tricks from the article.

However the resulting Makefile became a complete mess. Which unfortunately is a very common problem one when it comes to Makefiles.

<comment><USER9> I would rephrase that as "Which, unfortunately, is a very common problem when it comes to making software." The tool doesn't even seem to matter that much. Typically one tool does a decent job at _something_ but then completely drops the ball on other things.

Which I think is what plays to make's advantage. The one thing it does is track dependencies between files and the shell commands it takes to make them. The rest is punted to the shell commands.</comment></comment>


Android 4.4 KitKat Targets Google's Next Billion Users - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/31/android-4-4-kitkat-google/ <comment><USER2> Does the new Chromium WebView has WebRTC? Its says it is included in the 4.4SDK</comment>


FiveThirtyEight's Data - <AUTHOR> https://data.fivethirtyeight.com/ <comment><USER2> FiveThirtyEight also puts their data on Kaggle, if you are interested:

[https://www.kaggle.com/fivethirtyeight/datasets](https://www.kaggle.com/fivethirtyeight/datasets)</comment>


Apple Stores' Army, Long on Loyalty but Short on Pay - why-el http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/apple-store-workers-loyal-but-short-on-pay.html?_r=1&hp <comment><AUTHOR> This article starts out with a fallacy that immediately made me stop reading:

 _Jordan Golson sold about $750,000 worth of computers and gadgets at the Apple Store in Salem, N.H._

No. The ~$3M dollars that apple spends on advertising _daily_ ([http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Apple-products- guru-m...](http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Apple-products-guru- manages-a-933-million-budget-3622762.php)) are what put Jordan Golson in the position of seeing $750,000 worth of purchases be made in front of his cash register within 3 months of his working there.

Jordan Golson probably didn't have to "sell" a single customer who walked through that door.

All I see in the 'Apple vs. Tiffany' image on the left side of the NY Times page is a more efficient business model on the left.

<comment><USER2> All the money Apple puts into engineering and marketing counts for squat if someone goes into an Apple Store and has to deal with salesperson who is unhelpful or not knowledgeable. Best case you end up with an unhappy customer, worst case you loose a sale or a customer for life.

The Apple Store isn't Walmart, the people that work there aren't just cashiers. Hang out in the Apple store for 10 minutes and listen to the people there talking to customers, now do the same thing at Best Buy.

<comment><USER3> I've come to realise this is a New York thing, but every experience I've had an Apple Stores has been filled with smiley, doltish people who are terrible at honouring appointments on time. I go to the Apple Store when I'm willing to trade sanity for immediacy; otherwise I _far_ prefer ordering online.

The Cupertino and Phoenix Apple Stores I've been to were different, but comparing apples to apples (no pun intended) I've had great retail experiences in other New York stores.

<comment><USER4> > I go to the Apple Store when I'm willing to trade sanity for immediacy; > otherwise I far prefer ordering online.

I've learned that the Apple Store is not where I want to go for immediacy, either. Unless you are going when it's not filled with people, buying something is a pain. I cannot fathom the need to wait for a "sales" person to buy something specific.

If I want to buy an Apple product, I go someplace else. Apple stores have never been a prompt or efficient shopping experience for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh hell am I going to step into it.

Uh, its retail job. No one there creates the products they sell. Better yet, its not a hard sale. I would bet the majority of people entering an Apple store are there to buy something, provided they can afford it.

While some could and can make a living off of these jobs I see them as a stepping stone. As in, I would be forever fascinated by how these product I sell and obviously like are made, the design, the programming. So I would probably gravitate to learning the skills necessary to move into that line of work. Some may see this as a guide towards starting their own business, how do you market your product, present it, interact with people.

Still its not a job that requires any real education. It simply requires you to remember some product information, some tricks and tips, and not be a douchebag to other people, namely your co workers and customers.

They sell high priced products that are sold in large numbers, of course the numbers will be distorted. I really dislike articles like this because not all jobs within a company have the same value. When you have a product that nearly sells itself it kind of tells me who deserves more money - hint they are not at the store.

<comment><USER6> Have you ever worked in retail? I suspect not given your condescending attitude towards the skills retails works need. Exceptional customer service (which is what Apple Stores used to have, I think it's dropped off in recent years) requirers exceptional interpersonal skills, and is not something that anyone can just turn on, it's a skill - sure not one you learn through the traditional education world, but a highly valuable one.

<comment><USER7> Sorry, but no. I have worked retail, as have many of my friends and family. It's a low skill job, which is why it pays what it does and is done by armies of teenagers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I applied to be an Apple Store employee a few years back, when the economy was pretty sour. I got into the group interview with 15 other people...among them, an opera singer, a Harvard masters, a helicopter pilot, and someone recently laid off after 20 yrs in the pharmaceutical industry.

Before people here say, "Apple is doing a lot for people in jobs meant for teenagers", keep in mind that Apple retail employees are of very high stock. And don't kid yourself, if the average Apple employee were as apathetic and unskilled as the average Gap employee, there'd be no way that Apple would be so renowned as a retailer. When you're selling a product that sold itself, you still need good people...as these particular produccts are luxury, and customers have higher demands for service

<comment><USER9> Keep in mind that there are people with experience and education everywhere who through a variety of factors end up in retail. Apple simply skims off the top. There are other retailers who do the same, the problem is that most people never come into contact with those people, mainly due to the exclusivity of their products so Apple can easily draw the attention of any journalist due to their open door and relative geographic accessibility. It's like restaurant rating sites; anyone can eat out and review a meal, ergo a popular yet lazy approach.

What the article fails to address is that a) I'm already sold on the new product prior to its announcement and release and b) as a backup, if I really need it, there's a retail store where I can purchase the good or service that I need to easily complement my previous purchase.

Apple store employees are gophers, regardless of background and pedigree. They're cashiers that fetch my cables, machine or add-ons instead of me having to surf through the isles of a warehouse cum store hoping to catch the eye of someone wiring their third shift. And that's why I readily pay a premium for their products: a combination of hardware excellence and premium customer service.

That Apple doesn't pay commissions and top dollar to their low-level retail employees doesn't surprise me. It's a manifestation of supply and demand and I accept that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For me , here's the key paragraph from the article:

"By the standards of retailing, Apple offers above average pay — well above the minimum wage of $7.25 and better than the Gap, though slightly less than Lululemon, the yoga and athletic apparel chain, where sales staff earn about $12 an hour. The company also offers very good benefits for a retailer, including health care, 401(k) contributions and the chance to buy company stock, as well as Apple products, at a discount."

<comment><USER11> For comparison, companies like Oracle and IBM don't offer "the chance to buy company stock" even to senior techies and consultants, nor do they offer any real discount on their own products anymore.

<comment><USER12> Except a cursory google search shows that they do, just like every other tech company.

"Employee Stock Purchase Plan Oracle's Employee Stock Purchase Plan lets you purchase Oracle common stock at a discounted market price."

[http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/careers/college/benefits/...](http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/careers/college/benefits/index.html)

"Employee Plan Account Access If you hold shares in the IBM Employees Stock Purchase Plan, please use the Employee Plan Members site to access and manage your holdings. ESPP participants will also to able to view and transact on their registered IBM common shares that are not held in the ESPP. Instructions for ESPP login access are on this page."

[https://www-us.computershare.com/investor/default.asp?bhjs=1...](https://www- us.computershare.com/investor/default.asp?bhjs=1&fla=1&cc=us&issuerid=scusibm&landing=y&showinvestorcontact=y)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When you are an input, you will never get rich. Apple store employees are not tricked into the job. They are promised x and they get x. If they don't like it, they can go work for a Microsoft store. Or, they can stop complaining and create something themselves. Apple has created so many jobs, not just at Apple, Inc., but with the entire economy that has developed as a result of their products.

Perhaps the NY Times ought to be criticizing General Motors for stagnant growth and job losses rather than Apple who is actually doing something good for the economy. I think that the NY Times is just jealous -- after all, Instagram is worth more.

How many jobs has the NY Times created lately?

They find it easy to attack Apple, but seem to be sleeping when it comes to companies like Solyndra and Fiskar taking millions of taxpayer dollars and effectively wasting them. Apple is a net positive for the US economy, but the NY Times doesn't care about that -- it's trendy to attack Apple.

Foxconn, for example, makes stuff for HP and many other consumer hardware companies, yet it's always Apple that gets the worm from the media.

Nonsense. That's all this is. Linkbait rivaling Business Insider.

We can criticize Apple for many things, but job creation and economic value is not one of them.

<comment><USER14> Your points are worth making, but your tone paints you clearly in the fanboi camp. This line is particularly goofy sounding:

"I think that the NY Times is just jealous -- after all, Instagram is worth more."

You do know that newspaper articles are written by individuals, right? The CEO of the Times probably didn't even have any idea that such an article was being written.

<comment><USER13> The CEO doesn't necessarily know about each article, but you know the Times doesn't run a hatchet job on a major corporation without it filtering up to the top floor offices. Story lists are circulated among the executives. When I was a photographer for Reuters and Sipa (1996-2002), I had, on occasion, photos that would find their way up to the executive level before they'd be released. I can specifically remember my photos from Jasper, Texas and the James Bird Jr. murder getting some extra attention before they went out on the wire. Another situation involved a Black Panther protest and KKK counter- protest at the Gary Graham execution in Huntsville, TX.

Executives definitely know what's going on, especially with highly visible targets.

Stories are promoted, killed, "massaged" or delayed for various reasons by the executives. To believe otherwise is naïve.

The Times is losing subscribers, losing profits and you bet your ass that reporters are worried about it -- their jobs depend on the company's survival. Apple is increasing profits, hiring people and they're also non-union. Polar opposite of the NY Times organization. I'm not disputing any of the Times's facts, I am disputing the slant. Instead of addressing the very high youth unemployment among recent college graduates, they instead attack a company that's creating jobs -- without government "stimulus." That scares the typical Times reporters because it goes against their common refrain that government spending is necessary to save the economy.

Apple devices, specifically the iPad have cut into traditional newspaper profits substantially as well. It could be said that the internet killed the newspaper and the iPad is just fast tracking that process. People are consuming more content, but they are paying for it less frequently.

They could have run the same article about McDonalds. Billions in worldwide sales, yet cashiers are making low wages with no 401k, no stock purchase and very modest, if any health coverage. Yet, the take on Apple. What's the motivation? Are employees being abused? No. Are they being paid below market value? No. Are they being denied benefits? No.

What's the story? "Apple employees make less than the executives but more than nearly everyone else in retail." Big f'ing deal.

<comment><USER15> You're reading too much into it. I'm pretty sure it's just run of the mill sensationalism.

<comment><USER14> No, it _must be_ related to Instagram somehow!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When I was a student in London I took a job at the Regent Street apple store, the pay was a few £s above minimum wage (similar to the ratios mentioned in the article), and I gladly accepted the offer as they were paying towards the top end of retail wages at the time.

I never really felt that I was underpaid in any way, and I stuck around for about 2 years through the end of my degree. It was a great place to work, and I still have a bunch of friends from those days, some of who still work there.

Sure, it's not a world changing job, and compensated equivalently, but it is a great job and there are 30000 or so americans (and many more worldwide) who's rents are being paid through there jobs.

Good for Apple!

</comment><comment><USER16> I sold $350k-$1.2M / month when I worked at CompUSA in college (late 90s). I averaged $10/hr jan-september, about $18 november/december.

I was usually ranked 3 out of 100 salespeople. The rest made $6.60/hr.

I wasn't being exploited, and neither are the folks at the Apple store.

<comment><USER17> I take it you're an exceptional salesperson.

But the problem with your argument is that most people aren't exceptional. "Most people" is the very definition of normal. And normal people deserve a living wage, especially if they're working for the most profitable company in history.

<comment><USER18> Nobody deserves anything.

<comment><USER19> I assume that if the government were to expropriate all the capital owned by shareholders of Apple, you wouldn't be out there saying that they deserve to keep it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> _Many technicians, though, wanted to leave but were unable to find equivalent work, according to Mr. Garcia and other former managers, in part because of the weak economy._

For a job paying the median income for a 25+ individual with between an associate's and bachelor's degree their labour seems fairly priced if there is nobody else bidding for their skills.

</comment><comment><USER20> This story reminds me of my friends who worked for non-profits. It would be a perpetual hamster wheel of recruiting volunteers, organizing events, preparing. All of them were burnt out after two to three years and left. That is typical industry turnover.

Once they left, many were able to find corporate jobs in which they doubled their meager salary. Working for a recognizable non-profit is a filter for someone who works hard (at the entry level, the higher up you go, the more it is about being friends with major donors)

None of them regret it, you believe in the mission and thus you give them part of your youth.

<comment><USER21> Great for those who work for non profits who take care of people. Not so great if you work at the cult of Apple to get people to buy expensive hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Most of the people on the floor are kind of wastes of space -- I hate going into the Palo Alto store to buy anything, because the employee rarely actually knows what it is. I asked for "thunderbolt to gigabit ethernet adapter", which is pretty straightforward (and not stocked on the floor, since it's small and thievable I guess). 3 separate employees had no idea what it was, and then one of them decided to ask a manager, who did know. The geniuses are good, but they're not the retail people.

(I would have used the Apple Store app on my phone, but it doesn't work on iOS 6 beta...)

I kind of get the impression most of the Apple employees are there just to sell and "support" iPhones and iPads, not Macs.

</comment><comment><USER23> I worked at two Apple retail stores over the course of ~3 years. I did sales, worked at the Genius Bar, repaired machines and performed data transfers in the back, and delivered a shit-ton of One-to-One sessions. Though I generally enjoyed myself and remain good friends with many of my former co-workers, I never want to work there again, so here's some supplementary material they evidently don't want me to provide you with.

First, the top comment in this thread is…how to put this delicately…presumptuous, moronic, and generally unbecoming of the quality of discussion I expect on HN.

 _No. The ~$3M dollars that apple spends on advertising daily are what put Jordan Golson in the position of seeing $750,000 worth of purchases be made in front of his cash register within 3 months of his working there._

Um, cash register? Have you been in an Apple store recently? Where exactly was the cash register again? I must have missed it. And where did the customer procure the computer to place in front of Jordan at the nonexistent register? Oh wait, they're all in the back, a sales exercise would already have to be in progress for a boxed computer to make it out to the front of house in the first place.

Yes, Apple spends a lot on marketing, and they're damn good at it. The same might be said about BMW; Could their salespeople be replaced with mannequins without negatively impacting sales? How about Louis Vuitton? That shit sells itself, right?

The vast majority of customers who buy a computer in an Apple Store are buying their first Mac. In fact, the majority of them have never so much as entered an Apple Store prior to that visit. Perhaps they've had friends recommend a Mac in the past, perhaps they've even made up their mind before they walk in the door, but the average Apple Retail customer is far from a frothing-at-the- mouth fanboy. If I had to select a single word to describe first-time Apple customers (to reiterate, the majority of Apple _Retail_ customers are first- timers—I'll return to this) it would be _skeptical_. A knowledgeable, approachable sales team is an absolute necessity in that context. (I can think of a dozen instances when a jilted potential buyer wrote an email to a manager complaining that they walked in, had no idea what to do, weren't approached, and bailed—at which point a meeting was called and everyone had to double down on the _Warm Welcome_.)

The best salespeople at Apple would be the best salespeople wherever they worked. And if they worked somewhere else, they wouldn't have to contend with a sales floor full of people who _are not, and are never going to be customers._ Think about that for a second. I can't think of another retail chain where every machine on the floor is an internet-connected, totally functional computer. At an Apple Store, they are. Many of them are even loaded up with pro apps, and you're welcome to play as long as you like. Before I worked at Apple, I had no idea how many homeless people had email accounts. I had no idea how interested teenagers were in taking 500 iSight photos of themselves in public. Shit, we had one dude (easily the coolest transient I've ever met) who just came in and danced to YouTube videos. One time he tried to convince me that Michael Jackson composed all the music in _Sonic the Hedgehog_ (which actually turned out to be half-true, in reverse).

Somewhere in all that mess, Apple's sales team identifies the sometimes timid, frequently baffled first-time customer, answers questions, addresses their concerns, and ultimately sells them what is by all accounts an expensive ass computer.

Let's take a step back. Although Apple aren't the volume kings of retail computer sales, they do move a lot of units. Any idea what percentage of revenues are generated inside an Apple Retail Store? Last I heard (it's been over a year since I was on Apple's payroll) that number was less than 15%. There have been rumors for years that Apple operates the Retail stores at a loss as—you guessed it—a marketing expense. How does that figure into your theory?

Now that I have that off my chest, some other points:

-The only people I knew at Apple who made real money had been there from the beginning. Which is to say, they were in high ranking positions that didn't have a direct path to management (basically Genius and Creative) and got in early enough to receive stock options in lieu of bonuses when Apple wasn't doing so hot pre-iPod/Macbook/iPhone/iPad. The sole exception: "Store Leaders," Apple's term for the head manager of a retail store, a gig that frequently entails a six figure salary. Assistant managers are paid significantly less.

-The article is spot-on as far as poaching managers from other firms, though I encountered just as many former Starbucks managers as I did former Gap managers. The only managers I knew who had been promoted up the ranks at Apple were lifers (i.e. in some cases had been employed by Apple from the day the first retail stores opened), and most of them were stuck in Asst. Manager roles while Store Leaders were generally recruited externally. One of my managers had previously managed a MAC Cosmetics store. (Hah! Punny.)

-As you might expect, technical knowledge was rare among managers, in my experience. If you ever have an interaction with a Genius, and they mention that they need to confer with a manager and put on a sour face, they're not faking it. Almost every Genius I've ever met held their managers in absolute contempt.

-Apple doesn't hire for technical knowledge, except in the few roles where it's absolutely required (Again, Genius and Creative, and even some of the Creatives are kind of dopey.) They hire a personality type/range, with the expectation that they'll be able to train employees on technical details as required. If you've ever been to an Apple Store, and are a big enough nerd to be reading HN, you should probably have assumed this point already. If you were bitching in this thread about how Apple Employees aren't knowledgeable enough because you expected them to know even a fraction of what you know, perhaps you're not as perceptive as you think you are.

…

<comment><USER23> …

-From the article:

 _it wasn't a surprise to upper management because it was clear that many geniuses wanted to leave. There was a ceiling. It wasn't a glass ceiling because everyone could see it._

A-fucking-men.

Okay, so here's my tale of woe. I was hired as a part-time Specialist (salesperson). I'm terrible at sales, but I'm a nice guy and I know technology. Also, I'm tall, and people like that for some reason. So I kind of fit the description of the archetypal Apple Retail hire, except when a customer asked me a question I actually knew what I was talking about.

It wasn't long before managers and other employees were sending the most bizarre, detailed, or otherwise highly technical questions in my direction, as any Geniuses on the clock already had their hands full. I would proceed to spend as long as possible chopping it up with a fellow geek, all the while not selling anything. This soon got the attention of my store's lead creative, who sent me off to a two day training session, after which I had three dedicated days a week wherein I did nothing but One-to-One training sessions.

It was more interesting than sales, but I was never promoted to Creative, nor did I receive any sort of pay raise. In fact, I couldn't even get management to officially promote me to full-time, despite the fact that I was consistently being scheduled 36-40 hours a week (occasionally they'd drop in a 29 hour week to absolve themselves of any legal obligation to promote me). Multiple calls to HR were met with insistence that "those decisions are made at a store level." (Eventually I adjusted my availability such that they couldn't schedule me more than 36 hours and I had Thu-Fri-Sat off every week.)

All the while, the internal training program for Geniuses and Creatives was effectively frozen. I would discover why when they eventually introduced a new role between Specialist and Genius/Creative, called "Family Room Specialist." An FRS splits their time between 1to1 training, Genius Bar shifts focusing on small device (iPod/iPhone/iPad) triage and repair, and basic repairs/RAM upgrades/data transfers in the back.

There were employees at every Apple store who had been doing all these jobs for years. Most of them had been doing them as Specialists, in my case for about a year and a half, in other cases I was familiar with as long as five years. When the FRS role was conceived, management held a hard line that a "promotion" to FRS was in fact a lateral move—no raise, no negotiation. I was in the second group of FRS hires at my store, all of us had been doing the same shit with a different title for some time already. All of us were passed over on the next round of Genius/Creative promotions. Conversations with management went nowhere, as they had little understanding of what our jobs even required, and as the article indicates, there was always a line of warm bodies around the block ready to enlist.

Even if I'd been promoted to Genius, I stood to make as little as half what the highest paid Genius at the time, another Apple lifer, was making. And that's really where the trail ends for many Apple employees, and I don't just mean internally. Most skills that make you a great Apple employee are totally non-transferable, due to the company's priorities (although noble) being so inconsistent with much of the retail world. I hear all this about how Apple's a great thing to have on your resume, but it hasn't done me a whole hell of a lot of good.

I was happy to hear earlier this week that some of my friends might be getting much-deserved raises. I'm also happy that I got the hell out of there when I did, and couldn't imagine working there again. I was a PC geek before switching to a Mac when I went to college, and I was deep into Mac nerdery well before I started working for Apple; I had my own reasons for being there. However, some other folks there hit the kool aid pretty damn hard, which can be an annoyance, particularly when they're technical dunces. As previously stated, unless your career aspirations amount to working at the Genius Bar or teaching old people how to use the Google for $15 an hour, there isn't much of a point to working at Apple for any extended period of time.

Most critically, many of the customers are absolutely fucking reprehensible. Let me repeat that, in slightly different terms: If you walk into an Apple Store, act as if the technician you're speaking to caused the problem you're having with your iPhone (Hint: Generally speaking, you're the problem.), and give the impression that you believe no one else in the building has a problem that matters—especially if you behave aggressively and/or condescendingly, issue ultimatums, throw adult tantrums, threaten legal action, or demand free replacements/upgrades you don't deserve—allow me to recommend, on behalf of all Apple Retail employees, past and present, who are restricted from speaking for themselves, that you _EAT YOUR OWN ASSHOLES, YOU DESPICABLE CUNTS._

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think the majority of us are missing the point. "Good" American jobs are hard to come by. No longer can unskilled retail sales people make a living wage, even at Apple. Glad I work in tech.

<comment><USER25> It scares me to think how many more jobs in the future will no longer have living wages. Retail used to be a living wage job long ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Like any other part of the labour market wages are largely based on the supply of labour. There are probably millions of people in the United States alone who are qualified and would be happy to work at an Apple Store for the same wages. Truth is there are plenty of people who would work for lower wages. Retail is not really a career. It's a job. If you want to make money you need a career not a job.

</comment><comment><USER27> This just in: a bottom-rung retail job doesn't pay very much.

</comment><comment><USER28> tl;dr -- retail jobs pay low wages, Apple included.

What I took away from it? Apple is paying market rates for its semi-skilled employees in a high unemployment market. The market is the problem, not the employer.

</comment><comment><USER29> I think the most interesting thing is the mention that a huge number of college grads work at Apple stores. I wonder if this is just due to the economy with more educated people just gravitating to retail in general or whether employment at an Apple store has a prestige that is comparable to a more traditional role for a degree holder?

<comment><USER12> What else are you going to do, if you are young, intelligent, naive, and have spent 4 years working very hard but acquiring no actually marketable skill? You 'start at the bottom' like your parents tell you.

Of course, they don't realize that the bottom goes nowhere today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Nothing new. As usual the faithful are the suckers.

<comment><USER13> How much is that Best Buy job paying these days?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> By not paying that much, they filter for people who have an extra incentive to work for Apple (ie. because they love the brand).

</comment><comment><USER32> tl,dr; Apple retail jobs are in high demand, pay reasonably well and have excellent benefits. The NY Times was able to find some folks to speak badly about that.</comment>


Super-Tough Solar Panels Could Make Every Road Into A Power Plant - <AUTHOR> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/super-tough-solar-panels-could-make-every-road-into-a-power-plant/ <comment><USER2> This is just confusing. As far as I understand it, the problem with solar panels has very little to do with where they are put--it's their prohibitive cost that is the real issue.

And anyway, roads seem like a pretty poor place to put a solar panel anyway. Vibration from cars and wear and tear are bad enough on cement and asphalt. I'm not sure what translucent covering they're going to use on the solar panel, but it's going to be expensive or wear down quickly--or both. Also, having to support an active electrical grid that spans the entire country sounds like a nightmare to me.

According to the Solar Roadways website [1], the US Interstate System is 25 million square miles of road. That is coincidentally very close in size to the Mojave desert [2]. Wouldn't that be a lot better choice? (I'm not saying a giant solar array in the desert is a _good_ idea, just a lot better than trying to hybridize roads and solar panels)

[1] <http://www.solarroadways.com/The%20Numbers.htm>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_desert></comment>


Metropolitan Police officers start wearing body cameras - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27313500

<comment><USER2> Is it a good idea for stick those staff on body, because cameras have radiation which can be harmful for human body.</comment>


5 ways to be a great Airbnb host, courtesy of Conan O'Brien - <AUTHOR> http://blog.airbnb.com/team-coco-on-air

<comment><USER2> I've toyed with the idea of renting out a room in my SF apartment for the nights I'm out of town and making a bit of extra $$ that way, but am concerned about security. It's worrisome to think about giving a stranger the key to your apartment - not just because they can do stuff while you're gone, but because they could copy the key. Anyone have experience with being a host? Did you take extra security precautions, like changing the lock/key system?

<comment><USER3> I think Airbnb only really works when treated like a hotel.

I do believe that most people are good people and wouldn't steal, destroy your place, etc, but the thing is, it only takes one. This is your home, not just a building you own/have access to. You probably have things there that have intrinsic value to you (photos) as well as things which could compromise your identity (mail, passports, computers).

Would you let a random stranger stay in your house while you were gone? Probably not. There's just too much risk.

Now if its run as a hotel room/rented out condo, it would be different, but in this case, the place would be minimally furnished, there would be no important documents on site, and so, everything would be relatively easily replaceable.

I think Airbnb is a great idea, but more for businesses, extra rooms (when you'll be there), rather than renting out your room when you're out of town to make a few extra dollars.

By the way, the worst -has- happened: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/airbnb-burglary- sf-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/airbnb-burglary-sf-woman- violated_n_912788.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is this why airbnb's site has been going down faster than the ShmooCon ticket reg page? _oooh sick burn!_</comment>


Study: 42% of Americans Check Their Email in the Loo - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/27/study-42-of-americans-check-their-email-in-the-loo/

<comment><USER2> I'm assuming then that 58% of Americans do not have white collar jobs.</comment>


Sex and Race Discrimination in Academia Starts Even Before Grad School - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-and-race-discrimination-in-academia-starts-even-before-grad-school/

<comment><AUTHOR> It would be interesting to see what results would be observed if the experiment were repeated in startup land. I.e. 6500 emails with the same specific query in relation to potential career direction or startup-related problem sent to industry peers.</comment>


How People Learn to Become Resilient - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-secret-formula-for-resilience <comment><USER2> There is a dark side to the idea of an 'internal locus of control.' It creates a sense that the individual can and should manage the situation, even when the situation is totally unmanageable. I think it's a common problem among high achievers (particularly entrepreneurs), and conversely some 'resilient' people need to accept that there sometimes really IS an external locus of control before their efforts to control the situation break them. Hence the serenity prayer ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer)) and major parts of eastern spiritual traditions...

<comment><USER3> Good point, it's very important to have balance and be able to adhere to the "And wisdom to know the difference." part. I do think that it is important to have the experience of having too much 'internal locus of control' in order to get a good feel for that.

<comment><USER4> Or to think that it doesn't matter what happens externally.

Aurelius says something like "How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised by anything that happens in life." As in, why would external events matter or be a surprise? Things happen. The only thing you can control is how you react to them and what you choose to do about them. That helps me at least. It's all about process, not outcomes. Outcome is a roll of the die, so all you can do is make sure your internal processes are sound.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The idea that resilience can be learned also implies that resilience can be spread through social groups -- if you spend more time around resilient people who view potentially traumatic events in a more positive light, it may lead you to do the same.

I certainly found this to be true after hurricane katrina; talking to people who had been through other large-scale disasters helped me re-frame the events as a learning experience, and I've subsequently found myself more resilient in the face of other (unrelated) negative events in my life.

<comment><USER6> You can even see it in babies/toddlers when they fall over or something and look straight to the parents to see what their reaction should be.

Fretting leads to bawling and encouragement to get back up helps them just get one with whatever

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like the article and where it is going, though I think the specific recommendations they make only scratches the surface. There are much better techniques that can be learned from some traditional wisdom lineages, shamanic initiations, and esoteric martial art lineages.

From my own experiences with Vipassana and other practices, it isn't enough to turn something negative into a positive. If you are not careful, that turns into clinging (wishful thinking). Rather, we're talking about being able to look at _everything_ with clarity, with neither aversion or clinging. To be in equanimity with existential anguish.

This is something I am deeply interested in. Resiliency, drawing from all the different traditions and disciplines I had picked up, is something I want to instill in my step-daughter, and any other children I might raise. None of the things we know as "formulas of success" will apply by the time my kid(s) or your's reach adulthood. Our tech is moving too fast for that.

I want my step-daughter to learn how to Choose in face of uncertainty; to act with impeccable intent; to see the world with clarity. To be equally at home lost in the woods as in the middle of the urban jungle; to speak and communicate well with people of high status and the humblest of the homeless, both intimate friends and strangers from exotic culture. Resiliency is the basis to _thrive_.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a damn good point.

How did you pursue equanimity? Are referring to the Vipassana meditation 10-day course, and if so, how much did it contribute to your overall equanimity?

<comment><USER7> Hmmm. The word "equanimity" is a noun, so it makes it sound like it's some treasure you can possess and somehow, everything will be magically in equanimity. It's not like that because you enter a state of present moment awareness, which can start surfacing up a lot of crap. It's being OK with the crap -- being OK with being disturbed and uncertain and in anguish and in bliss and a lot of things. For me, it's more that ... things arise and passes, and whatever they are, I see them for what it is. And don't get me wrong, there's still a lot of crap I am working through. Sometimes, I feel like a sewage worker mucking out the endless sewage.

Vipassana is one path to work with this. If you are familiar with it, and you have some combination of curiosity and doubt about it, I highly suggest going with it. For others, their path to this will be different.

From a Taoist alchemy point of view, there is an excessive, energetic toxin directed related to existential misery. It results from our tech. I say this as a person who makes a living writing software tech. So on the side, I've been exploring that to figure out how to reduce the the anguish specifically related to excessive, toxic tech. From a Vipassana perspective, it doesn't matter if it is out of balance. It's seeing that dukkha (existential anguish) Just Is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The thing I've found most frustrating about the framing and discussion around these things in a clinical setting (in my limited experience, with people who were probably not trained specifically in these concepts) is that it's basically not allowed to say that your understanding doesn't fit on the "locus of control" spectrum (for example, if you reject mind-body dualism, without which the assumed concepts of "internal" and "external" are somewhat absurd). According to the worksheet, I _must_ have some kind of one-dimensional "core belief" about the power of self versus environment. Some of the concepts and research around this seem promising, but in my experience as a patient/client, the practice leaves a lot to be desired.

More broadly, I've been frustrated by a lot of the clinical psychology that focuses on highly stereotyped _beliefs_. Too much of it reads like just-so stories; Alice looks at Bob's behavior and then treats her own speculations about Bob's beliefs as though they're actual observations.

<comment><USER9> > _for example, if you reject mind-body dualism, without which the assumed > concepts of "internal" and "external" are somewhat absurd_

How are they absurd? You don't have to believe that "your mind" is a separate ontological thing, in order to have a concept of internal and external control. Even if you think your physical brain is your mind (which I would agree is a very reasonable thing to think), you can still have opinions about how much you can influence your environment, and you can form beliefs which affect how your brain responds to stimulus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > The good news is that positive construal can be taught. "We can make > ourselves more or less vulnerable by how we think about things," Bonanno > said. In research at Columbia, the neuroscientist Kevin Ochsner has shown > that teaching people to think of stimuli in different ways—to reframe them > in positive terms when the initial response is negative, or in a less > emotional way when the initial response is emotionally "hot"—changes how > they experience and react to the stimulus. You can train people to better > regulate their emotions, and the training seems to have lasting effects.

Sounds like the complete opposite of what some people seem to promote.

</comment><comment><USER11> The idea is to practice variations of the skill you want to master instead of practicing same repetitions over and over. Actual paper is unfortunately behind paywall:

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215015146)

<comment><USER12> [http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2045379445/2056784269/mmc...](http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2045379445/2056784269/mmc2.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Most of this was known to the likes of Diogenes, Rufus, Epictetus, and Aurelius. All that is required to have a good guess at this at least is close observation of our fellows.

<comment><USER14> a lot of the subject of this article - "why do some children from awful backgrounds succeed and why do others fail?" is still a very open problem.

<comment><USER15> Same can be said about children from good backgrounds. What makes Donald Trump's kids 'successful'? I know some extremely privileged people in the early 20s that could do anything, are very attractive, have no worries but live a life of complete chaos. I know others who were smart and super wealthy, but stumbled and couldn't recover emotionally/mentally.

I personally think it has a lot to do with stoicism and those who look for solutions vs those who just try to cope.

<comment><USER16> Good point. Money doesn't guarantee your success. You can still mess up a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> norea-armozel I like this article because it makes me wonder what becomes of people with a similarly bad background like myself (abusive parents and such). I won't say that I think I'm resilient; I don't think I am but for some odd reason my therapist does. Go figure.

</comment><comment><USER17> What are some recommended books on this topic?

<comment><USER18> As I said earlier I don't think you can learn it in a book.

A short read : [http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2015/01/grit/](http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2015/01/grit/) ( A Navy SEAL Explains 8 Secrets To Grit And Resilience)

A previous ask HN on this topic but it didn't get many comments : [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048402](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048402)</comment></comment>


Honeypots Lure Industrial Hackers Into the Open - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514216/honeypots-lure-industrial-hackers-into-the-open/

<comment><AUTHOR> There were a few things that I found disturbing, but in the wake of the whole Chinese State-sponsored hacking agenda, the findings were definitely suggestive, albeit with all the normal caveats of a small sample size.

"A total of 39 attacks were mounted on Wilhoit's honeypots, some of which involved modifying the settings of the physical system they appeared to control. Attacks appeared to originate from computers in a variety of countries, with 35 percent from China, 19 percent from the U.S., and 12 percent from Laos."

"The most striking attacks exploited bugs to change the settings of Wilhoit's imaginary industrial systems. "They were doing things that would change the water pressure, or temperature, or stop the flow on the water pump," says Wilhoit."

"Because the attacks made use of techniques specific to industrial control systems, Wilhoit believes they were carried out by people intent on finding and messing with such systems."

The last of which, seems to be the most inflammatory. However, I'm unwilling to make the leap for one reason. As is oftentimes the case and rightfully so, they are sparse on details as to what the hack is and therefore, I can't determine what level of skill is required to target industrial control systems (though that's not my field anyway). Though I'd like to know more, b/c as stated, these systems often have little to no security and are connected to the web.</comment>


Patio11 says Hello Ladies - <AUTHOR> http://akshat.posterous.com/patio11-says-hello-ladies <comment><USER2> Posted with slides on my blog.

[http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/26/software-for- underserved...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/26/software-for-underserved- markets/)

I had been waiting for the video to come out -- they usually use them to promote the Business of Software conference. So, let me make my one plug: _go to the Business of Software conference_. It was one of the highlights of my professional career, and I got advice and inspiration that directly helped get AR launched the following month. This talk barely gets in the ballpark of quality of some of the presentations -- and the real reason to go isn't the presentations, but to meet people who doing great things in software. (More than once I found myself asking "Who the heck let me sit at this table?! This guy bootstrapped a business which sells _nuclear power plant control software_ and now has N employees and Y million revenue. I make bingo cards for a living!")

Thanks for the praise by the way.

<comment><USER3> How much advice from the nuclear plant guy is relevant for bingo cards? Honest question, I can see "surprisingly more than you'd think" to "well, not much, really" being in the range of possible answers.

Sounds like a fun conference, but I'm cheap: $2000+ plus travel plus hotel, plus lost time is a lot of money. Conferences always seem like a much better deal if you get invited as a speaker. You get a super-power-bonus for your own networking, because people recognize you from you talk, you get a speaker badge, and so on, and plus, you don't have to pay so much (or anything if it goes well). I pretty much stopped going to conferences where I'm not speaking.

<comment><USER4> (In agreeing I'll add) I'm stingier with my time than $2000; the thing making me hesitate on the next one is that I wonder how much of Patrick's endorsement is based on him getting to sit at the cool kid's table in the evening and talk directly with the other speakers. Patrick, did you learn much from talking directly to attendees? Had you not been speaking, would you have learned as much from (say) Peldi?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Non-blogspam link: <http://businessofsoftware.blip.tv/file/4933754/>

Alternatively a direct link to the 70MB M4V (H264 & AAC) source (so you can avoid Flash, even though Blip.tv has HTML5 I think): [http://blip.tv/file/get/Businessofsoftware- PatrickMcKenzieMa...](http://blip.tv/file/get/Businessofsoftware- PatrickMcKenzieMarketingToMinorities763.m4v)

It's a video called "Patrick McKenzie. Marketing to minorities".

Title of the talk was "Software for underserved markets", he talks about women. It's quite short (<10 minutes) and full with wit and energy. Great fun to watch.

<comment><USER6> This Patrick McKenzie sounds suspiciously like patio11, the submitter of this very link...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Patrick, I'm really glad to see you use the reference from the Atlantic article in your presentation. It was one of the most memorable "testimonials without even being a testimonial" I've ever read about the use software for a higher purpose:

 _Next, Mr. Taylor announces it's time for Multiplication Bingo. As Mr. Taylor reads off a problem ("20 divided by 5"), the kids scour their boards, chips in hand, looking for 4's. One girl is literally shaking with excitement. Another has her hands clasped in a prayer position. I find myself wanting to play. You know you're in a good classroom if you have to stop yourself from raising your hand._

My reaction, which hasn't changed, from 11 months ago:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1267630>

The full article:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/01/what- makes...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/01/what-makes-a- great-teacher/7841/)

<comment><USER8> That is a great article, even aside from the anecdote about the bingo cards. Analysing what makes a good teacher is so important yet so difficult in reality because of the influence of teachers' unions. There's also is a huge reluctance to use any information that is discovered to improve our education systems.

<comment><USER9> Amazingly, it's also highly relevant to entrepreneurs. The article lists six characteristics of great teachers:

1\. great teachers tended to set big goals for their students

2\. perpetually looking for ways to improve their effectiveness

3\. avidly recruited students and their families into the process

4\. maintained focus, ensuring that everything they did contributed to student learning

5\. planned exhaustively and purposefully by working backward from the desired outcome

6\. worked relentlessly, refusing to surrender

\--

Translating these to the world of entrepreneurs we can say:

1\. set big goals for yourself

2\. perpetually look or ways to improve your effectiveness

3\. avidly recruit workers and partners into the process

4\. maintain focus, ensuring that everything you do contributes to your goals

5\. plan exhaustively and purposefully by working backward from the desired outcome

6\. work relentlessly, do not surrender

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The best line is when he says, "features.html should 404."

What he says is basically:

1\. Develop a niche, and this is probably easier if you target women.

2\. Sell an emotional experience, not features.

3\. Tell stories because software is boring.

4\. Profit!!!

<comment><USER11> _2\. Sell an emotional experience, not features._

Something I learned in the course of raising and homeschooling a couple of special needs kids:

Emotion is a form of memory. People who lack much in the way of affect are terrible at making snap decisions. They lack a "gut feeling" to go on. That "gut feeling" is a shorthand way for the brain/body to store info and make decisions quickly. I have one son that is very emotional and capable of making snap decisions. I have one son who has little affect and can't make snap decisions. So I think using "emotional appeal" is a form of shorthand to communicate value to the audience. I don't think I can explain it better than that, but I really think it doesn't deserve the bad rap it gets. Emotional appeal is not some sort of illogical, shallow, silly means to make a decision. It is an alternate means, but not necessarily any less information-dense than scads and scads of logical analysis. In fact, it is probably more information dense (a la "a picture's worth a thousand words" -- "a gut feeling is worth hours and hours of study and analysis") and that is likely why it contains power to sell so much more effectively.

Peace.

Edit: Utterly baffled by the downvote. No one needs to upvote me, but some thoughts as to what the issue is would be appreciated. Thanks.

<comment><USER12> I didn't downvote you, but I am going to thoughtfully disagree.

Emotional heuristics aren't cognitively worthless, and they're not even that bad, but they definitely have their own biases that you need to adjust for. Our emotional intuitions are largely shaped more by evolution than by our own values and preferences. If emotions were great cognitive tools, we wouldn't need to discover rationality.

<comment><USER13> (Not to be sarcastic, but cute) I didn't downvote you, but I am going to thoughtfully disagree.

 _Our emotional intuitions are largely shaped more by evolution than by our own values and preferences._

Well, if that were the case, people would have the same emotions about the same things, but actually, different people have different reactions to different things. (That's because they value different things.)

 _If emotions were great cognitive tools, we wouldn't need to discover rationality_

Emotions are responses to values (as patio11 said, rightly, in his talk). You need to use reason to figure out what you value. Once you do, your emotions follow therefrom. But "what you value" is actually very complex and context- dependent sometimes, which is why emotions are so useful to give you a snap summary of what could otherwise be a very complex situation to analyze thoroughly.

It's certainly the case that your emotions can be "wrong," but they just follow the thinking you've done previously, whether that thinking was deliberate or accidental.

<comment><USER12> If all of your emotions are perfectly consistent with your rationally chosen values, I seriously envy you.

<comment><USER13> I'm sure it's _extremely_ rare (maybe not 100% possible) to have all your values be fully consistent with one another. (I'm certainly not there.)

Our mental data is stored out of our conscious awareness unless we're actually thinking about it, and emotions actually come out of that (i.e., out of the subconscious). So one can't even be aware of all the values held in their subconscious unless they take a long time and pay a lot of attention to their emotions. Hence, getting them all to be consistent is no easy feat. Unless one were to start out with sufficient knowledge to do it right in the first place, which we don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> That was a great speech. After ruminating a bit, I'm still left with the sad thought that I have no clue how to put this information to use. I just went through my last 100 orders and 29 were women, so there's room for improvement. I just Googled a few variations of "how women buy on the internet", which resulted in a bunch of sites for little blue pills and Russian brides, I didn't find any useful studies. It would be a good reading topic if anyone knows a source.

<comment><USER15> Why don't you ask your female customers? Ask them how they found you? why they bought? what features of the product they like the best? ...

<comment><USER14> I actually have asked customers - both men and women, but the main issue is that only a small percentage ever contact me for pre-sales or support inquires (which is nice in its own way), It never hurts to read academic or professional studies with a broader scope, though.

<comment><USER16> Bribe them. Give them a promotional code that gives them $5 of one of your other products, and let them give a $5 discount to one of their friends. You'll be able to purchase information about your target market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow, really nicely done. Sure, some nerves and timing issues but really impressive outside that, particularly as an non-natural public speaker.

Of course, the true measure of public speaking is how many people act on the message. :) Would be interested to know what feedback patio11 has received on that front.

Are the slides available somewhere? Couldn't find them on his site.

<comment><USER2> _particularly as an non-natural public speaker._

My favorite comment after the speech: "Honestly, when you got up on stage, I thought 'Oh cripes, an engineer with no social skills.' Little did I know it was all part of the act!"

Hah, the joke is on you, sucker :)

(Joking aside: this is the best speech I've given in my life by a factor of "lots" judging by audience reaction, but I did competitive public speaking for most of a decade. It isn't totally anomalous that I'd be decent at it.)

<comment><USER18> [Please approach in a light tone]

I found you engaging and fresh in your approach (but I don't see that many presentations so what do I know) but to be uber-critical you spoke a bit too quickly at times. Usually this is an indication of nervousness but you appear to suggest (above) you have so much experience that this wouldn't be a problem.

Incidentally I suck at public speaking and tend to make nervous quips and self-deprecate (which tends to make one look worse) like you did with your "10 second [...] shoulda practised [...]" interlude. Did I mention that I'm a bit too heavy on the negative critique usually too ...

Couple of points/queries:

Is the colour of the guys you're selling software to relevant? You specify that they're white guys but I wasn't sure if this is a specific comment on demographics of people who buy software or if it was something else?

Second, knowing when a battle was doesn't make you intelligent though it might make you knowledgeable or nerdy. That aside Google don't appear to sell themselves on the issue of their customers presenting themselves as knowledgeable. Surely the benefit they sell most is simply "not wasting time looking for stuff" (Bing do the same, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLV_MTvshGg>).

<comment><USER19> Don't forget the format. He had slides auto-advancing every 30 seconds.

<comment><USER18> I saw that after I posted and thought his timing was pretty amazing given that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Software is just the monetisation engine for the emotion business."

That makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER21> It is difficult to understate how good Patrick was.

BoS has some of the best speakers in the business. Some you will have heard of - Seth Godin, Joel Spolsky, Geoffrey Moore - some you won't have heard from even if you have heard of them - Peldi at Balsamiq for example. <http://businessofsoftware.org/prevyear.aspx>

Patrick only had 7 minutes 30 seconds but he rocked the house. He will be back this year we hope.

<comment><USER22> I assume

      s/understate/overstate/

<comment><USER21> Ha! Indeed. I had originally written, 'couldn't overstate'. Then I wrote something else. Then a small child appeared and distracted me. Then I just posted nonsense. I blame the minors.

What I meant was Patrick was totally awesome and the video doesn't do his talk proper justice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Brilliant talk - but for some reason I always envisioned patio11 as being quite considerably older...!

</comment><comment><USER24> This was great, but he seemed a little nervous, although his text was perfect.

<comment><USER2> So I had this talk down _cold_ when I arrived in Boston and then learned I had misunderstood the rules for talks. I thought I had 7.5 minutes to go through 15 slides with a clicker. 48 hours prior to doing this talk I learned I had 30 seconds per slide and then the slide would autoadvance.

This totally fubared my joke timing, so I had spent the entire night prior to this speech practicing, going so far as to do so over lunch in my hotel room, to the amusement of the cleaning lady who also needed the room. I didn't stop being terrified out of my freaking mind until "swan dive", which was the moment that I knew I had the crowd.

<comment><USER25> Autoadvance is inhumane. Speakers should not be expected to have their timing down so well that every slide transitions smoothly. The presenter will inevitably be a couple of seconds off on every slide.

I am impressed how well you pulled it off. It is hard enough to write, memorize and deliver a 7.5 minute speech. Then to add a sadistic constraint like autoadvancing slides, that raises the bar. But you nailed it. Hats off.

<comment><USER26> Auto advance _is_ going a bit too far. It's a recipe for mediocrity. Nobody can time transitions that regularly, and missing beats are ugly and painful.

I'd rather see a rule: Advance the slide within X seconds or it will auto advance. Then limit the number of words, or something, instead of the number of slides.

<comment><USER27> It's not that hard, really. If you memorize your presentation you can reliably get within a few seconds. Most of the transitions don't require pinpoint timing accuracy, anyway.

It's really common to overlook the amount of time that will be eaten up by applause/laughter, though. Don't forget to give yourself some breathing room for that sort of thing, particularly if your speaking format penalizes you in some fashion for going over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Very impressive, Patrick! Love the energy and humor.

Just wondering, how many times you practice it? (I'm guessing at least 5 times)

<comment><USER29> "All of the Lightning Talks were delivered by non-professional speakers. They followed a murderously difficult format: you get 15 slides which get auto- advanced every thirty seconds, and that's it. You might think that means you can get away with slapping together something in an hour: oh no. In discussions with my fellow lightning talkers, we agreed that there has been something of a "lightning talk arms race": the two talks I was most impressed by took over 24 hours to prepare, and mine took at least twelve solid hours over two months, with probably half of that being rehearsal until I could literally count out thirty seconds with a prepared spiel delivered in a voice other than my own."

[http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/10/15/lessons-learned-at- busin...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/10/15/lessons-learned-at-business-of- software-2010/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you are going to pick something up and post it on your Posterous, ignore the copyright notices, then post it on Hacker News, it would be really lovely if you could include one small link back to the event page you took it from.

<http://businessofsoftware.org/>

Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting and very timely, I think a significant portion of the audience for <http://LiberWriter.com> will turn out to be women.

So... what kind of easy to create image can I put up to show how things work in a more 'human' way? I like the spareness of the design and I'm not paying for a designer until I start making steady money so "go pay a design guy a lot of money" is not a good answer.

<comment><USER2> Get a $70 template from WooThemes (or any of numerous cheaper options) to make it look professional, then find a stock image of e.g. a woman sipping coffee at Starbucks and do one of those hand-drawn arrow things saying "She'll be a published author by the end of the latte."

Alternatively, a youngish mother playing with her child. Again, hand-drawn callout: "My mom is a published author."

<comment><USER21> Cool. A little birdie tells me that Adii Rockstar, founder of Woothemes will be coming from South Africa to talk at Business of Software this year.

<http://businessofsoftware.org/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is a man who understands why people buy stuff. Awesome to see him talk.

</comment><comment><USER31> This was brilliant. To me the best part was about bringing the emotional connection to customers right from the home page. Sell them the success they're subconsciously seeking.

</comment><comment><USER32> Such a simple talk, such simple advice, but I learned so much. So much is obvious upon reflection, but great advice usually is. Awesome job.

</comment><comment><USER33> Thanks for explicitly calling out that it isn't that people sell poorly to women, but that we sell poorly to everyone. It is a very useful turn to take when thinking about market segmentation. Great talk!

</comment><comment><USER21> If you are thinking of going to Business of Software this year, the first Early Bird discount finishes midnight PST on Sunday night. Over 150 places of 380 total gone already.

<http://businessofsoftware.org/>

</comment><comment><USER34> This is great. Goes along with Zed Shaw's philosophy on the selling and purchasing of enterprise software - steaks and strippers. Features are boring, steaks and strippers aren't.

<http://vimeo.com/2723800> (17:53)

</comment><comment><USER35> This was an awesome presentation, quick, funny, to the point.

However, it brought up some interesting questions for me. How many people can truly create software for the sole purpose of selling it? Unless he really likes Bingo cards, he worked on this software not out of love but love for money.

This isn't a bash, I'm insanely curious actually. The more I think about it, the more I know that I cannot create software for women because I have absolutely no interests that would coincide with an underserved market. Maybe I'm just not creative enough? And honestly, for me to create an awesome product, I'd have to be invested in it somehow.

<comment><USER2> I don't hate money, but if I wanted it, there would be more straightforward ways of getting it than BCC.

I certainly don't love bingo. I do really care about teaching and helping teachers. I also love running a business, both the actual mechanics of doing it and what it does for my life.

You almost certainly have interests which coincide with an underserved market, since you're a human and not a walking cliche of asocial geeky engineer who likes D&D and Firefly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Patio11, good speech and funny, too. Awesome job, man!

</comment><comment><USER37> Great talk! Funny, engaging, involved the audience, full of great content.

 _I_ certainly learned something, already rethinking a few parts of our messaging.

</comment><comment><USER38> I wondered at first how Patrick could squeeze success from something like Bingo card creation.

I don't anymore.

</comment><comment><USER39> I think of it as a two-dimensional market segmentation perspective: gender on one dimension, race on another. In a lot of segments, almost everybody is fighting it out in the "white guy" quadrant or at least the "guy" half. Take the Q&A space, for example: Quora is 80-90% guys, and so is StackOverflow. So there's room for competitors targeting the "niches" that actually make up most of the population. And there are similar dynamics in most market segments ...

</comment><comment><USER40> I have been highly anticipating this, and it's better than I thought it would be. A bit awkward at times, but that's what makes it so endearing.

We can see how genuine he is.

Good job Patrick!

</comment><comment><USER41> Excellent presentation. Brilliant. I'm always told that sell process is actually selling one of these four things: fear, greed, vanity, or insecurity.

But that is easier said than done. I have no clue how to achieve that (I'm still in "sell features" mindset). I would like to hear is there are any good examples of software product or server which does that well.

</comment><comment><USER42> Kind of along the lines of this is Spolsky's advice that he would give out at the Dev Days conference tour he does/did with Carsonified: How is your software going to get someone laid?

While a little far-fetched, it does help keep everything in perspective although it serves the young guy demographic a bit more.

<comment><USER43> Did that "get someone laid" bit originate with JWZ? <http://www.jwz.org/doc/groupware.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Thanks for posting this. I really enjoyed the presentation and have a newfound respect for patio11. Not that I didn't enjoy listening to him on the Techzing Podcast.

</comment><comment><USER45> At the end of the video Patrick mentions his website has some example businesses for women. Anyone have the link to that page?

<comment><USER46> It's the last slide and you should click the fullscreen button to be able to read the text: [http://www.slideshare.net/patio11/software-for- underserved-m...](http://www.slideshare.net/patio11/software-for-underserved- markets)

<comment><USER2> Here you go:

[http://images1.bingocardcreator.com/blog- images/hn/selling-t...](http://images1.bingocardcreator.com/blog- images/hn/selling-to-women.png)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Fan _tas_ tic presentation!

</comment><comment><USER48> Business of Software is the best for sharing these videos. Thanks Joel/BoS!

</comment><comment><USER49> Random, but is the intro from the "Stuff You Should Know" podcast?

<comment><USER50> It's from the Old Spice commercials.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I hate hero shots, do we have to have hero shots?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the karma bait title :)

<comment><USER51> From the title, I was half-expecting a link to patio11's profile on some dating site.

Great video, thanks for posting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Very interesting prespective

</comment><comment><USER53> Expect a surge in period tracker web apps.

</comment><comment><USER54> Doesn't work on iPhone?</comment>


Major Airline Reveals Passenger Information - <AUTHOR> http://blog.tinfoilsecurity.com/132969897

<comment><USER2> Part of the problem with (most) airline web sites is that they still rely on very old mainframe reservation systems. These run low-abstraction code and use fixed-format EDIFACT messaging (often using ALC, a six-bit character set predating ASCII), and are therefore hard to work with and hard to connect to modern web infrastructure.

ITA Software (which I cofounded but at which I'm no longer an employee, and which is now part of Google) has been working on a new reservation system built on modern technologies. This is a monumental undertaking, but they have already launched with at least one airline.

It'll get better, but for the next few years, at least, airline websites are going to be patchwork quilts prone to this sort of problem.

<comment><USER3> Looks a lot like a backend session key collision. Some session could see passenger manifests, others shouldn't and someone got accidentally merged into the one that could. I'll start checking my apps and see whether low and high sensitivity information use different code paths and maybe rely on layered sessions or something like that from now on.

<comment><USER2> Yes, or it could be that a web session got improperly connected to a reservation system session with additional privileges. The res system has its own notion of sessions and privileges, completely independent of web session management. With ITA's res system, you keep the web view of the system completely in sync with the reference view in the res system because the web infrastructure can actually talk directly to the res system using a real API. With a legacy res system running in TPF on a mainframe, it's not so simple, because you have to intermediate everything through very old protocols and transports that were designed long before Tim Beners-Lee set fingers to keyboard.

<comment><USER3> The design of the interface will probably reflect some of the architecture of the back-end - if all connections are virtual and go through one or more physical ports or if each connection requires a physical connection (that may be multiplexed into something else on its way to the heavy iron). I designed a much simpler thing that connected a PC running a Visual Basic app (cut me some slack - it was 92 or so) between a SQL Server and an AS/400 machine through an ancient ISA board that was only happy under OS/2 but tolerated DOS enough to cooperate a little. It was quite an experience - at least the data arrived in ASCII.

I have no idea what United is running (besides the Windows ASP.NET front-end), but I wouldn't be surprised if it's something complicated enough to induce programming errors in clever people.

ITA's quizzes more than once inspired me on tests I subjected candidates to in order to gain a better understanding of the plumbing inside their heads. I assume the reservation system plumbing is equally interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nevermind session management. The real question is: Why does the publicly accessible booking website have access to the passenger manifest of the aircraft _at all_?

In what possible way could knowing who the other people on the flight are benefit an individual booking a seat?

This is sloppy, sloppy coding; probably a result of some poor schmuck pulling an all nigher or two because the somebody promised an unrealistic deadline.

<comment><USER5> Agreed it's sloppy coding.

Here's my guess: it's probably because you can have multiple people on one reservation. Each passenger on the flight gets an ID, and each reservation contains the IDs of the involved parties. Invalid reservation ID? List _all_ the passengers, obviously!

<comment><USER6> Whatever happened to returning null?

<comment><USER7> Null means "match all" -- everyone knows that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I once had my session completely swapped with another user's session when using GEICO's online management in 2008. This sounds like a one-time error, but since I had the other user's contact information in front of me, I gave him a call and sure enough he was logged in as me, and me as him. We both called geico the next day explaining the situation and their senior IT folk got back to me within 24 hours saying they had fixed the bug. I always wondered since then how often this happens on large sites.

</comment><comment><USER9> I buy a lot of tickets on United's website (formerly Continental's), and it isn't a great experience – but the idea that this list is the flight's passenger manifest just doesn't make sense to me.

The screenshot shows the point in the ticketing workflow where you give the name (and basic TSA-required details) of the passenger purchasing the ticket. If you're logged in to the website, you can add as many passengers as you want to your account, which might be handy if you purchase tickets for your family or for coworkers. My guess would be that somehow the session got into an incorrect state and is showing the passengers from one or more other accounts.

Also, the form is the same whether you're booking a one-way flight with one manifest, or a roundtrip with many connections where each flight has a unique manifest. I don't understand how the system would be able to deal with these diverse sets of data.

</comment><comment><USER10> Love the name, "Tinfoil Security".

Paranoia --> profit.

They should sell rolls of tinfoil too, for "serious protection", just as a gag.

<comment><USER11> Send us your address; we'll send you a tinfoil hat! :)

<comment><USER3> Do they come with the plan? I'd love that!

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure! Email email@example.com and let us know you bought a plan, and we'll send you a Tinfoil Hat for every member of your family. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Heh, last week I couldn't book a ticket for two days, as the fare box would come up empty. Tried different browsers/computers: no dice. Maybe this is related to United+Continental's integration?

I wonder: When he selected the other passengers, did their information populate? Telephone/address/etc.?

<comment><USER13> Ben here. Other info thankfully didn't seem to come through or be present in the response. But still gave me pause and not something I wanted my name on :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is a risk that these types of information leaks will become more common. Organisations are being forced to compete and have an online offering. This is great but suddenly you have linked systems that put sensitive customer data within touch of others. One wrong code and your hidden data is no longer hidden. In the past the sales and payment systems were totally separate.

</comment><comment><USER15> Strange that you got more access to data with an expired session than with a valid one.

Sidenote: Can't wait 'til Tinfoil opens up to a larger group; I've been over to your site several times over the past week. Looks like a useful product.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sign up on our beta list, and shoot an email to firstname.lastname@example.com

We'll roll you into the next batch of invites. :)

<comment><USER15> Thanks, much appreciated.</comment></comment></comment>


The Emperor: The ultimate geek workstation - <AUTHOR> http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/06/13/the-emperor-the-ultimate-geek-workstation/

<comment><USER2> This just makes me think of the loser/villain in Grandma's Boy.

<comment><USER3> [In robot voice] I am a geeenius!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cubicle 2.0

</comment><comment><USER5> <comic book guy>The ultimate geek workstation? Hah! The seat needs to be at least twice as wide.</comic book guy>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If I had one of these, I'd never want anything else again.

</comment><comment><USER6> If it hovers I am sold.

</comment><comment><USER7> But can it run Crysis?</comment>